ArticleJPRAS open2026
Assessing techniques and outcomes in scrotal reconstruction: A sudanese cohort study.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acquired scrotal defects, most commonly resulting from infection and trauma, present complex reconstructive challenges. This study evaluated the causes and reconstructive outcomes of scrotal defects in a Sudanese multi-center cohort, aiming to (1) identify predominant aetiologies and comorbidities, (2) describe reconstructive techniques and complication profiles, and (3) compare outcomes among different flap types. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at two Sudanese hospitals from January 2024 to December 2025, including patients with acquired scrotal defects undergoing reconstruction. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, aetiology, defect size and location, reconstruction timing, surgical technique, and complications. Defects were stratified by surface area involvement. Statistical analysis used descriptive methods and significance testing (p < 0.05). Results: Forty-two patients (mean age 37.4 years) were included; 43% had diabetes. Infection was the leading cause (76%), with diabetes significantly associated with infection-related defects. Most defects were bilateral (67%), and 78% were moderate or large. Reconstruction methods included scrotal advancement (36%), Singapore (31%), TFL (24%), and modified pudendal thigh flaps (10%), with skin grafts for penile resurfacing (7%). Complications occurred in 45%, most often partial flap necrosis and wound dehiscence; complication type was significantly associated with flap type. Conclusion: Infection-often in diabetic patients-was the predominant cause of scrotal defects. Multiple flap techniques provided satisfactory coverage, especially thigh-based flaps for larger defects, with no donor site morbidity. High complication rates emphasize the need for individualized reconstructive strategies, as no single technique proved clearly superior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.